Sorry for disappearing from this thread, but I was away. I want to
draw attention to something in this discussion, however.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 03:25:35AM -0400, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
I will completely agree with you that this is where the problem *should*
be solved. However, we are
Le 2 avr. 2010 à 07:54, Igor Gashinsky a écrit :
I, for one, get pretty damn pissed when my vendors roll out new features
(most of which I could care less about) while breaking existing things
that I use -- I tend to not deploy those things into production.
That's precisely the reason why
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
But Remi's point is that those same systems (running Windows XP
and IE6) using 6rd will be denied the ability to access content
via IPv6. Which removes an incentive for ISPs to add 6rd (and
offload the NAT44 they may soon have
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:26:53PM -0700, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
But Remi's point is that those same systems (running Windows XP
and IE6) using 6rd will be denied the ability to access content
via IPv6. Which removes an
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:12:43PM -0700, Dan Wing wrote:
There are two categories of ISP
subscribers:
1. If subscriber is provisioned for IPv6, they are pointed at
the ISP's DNS server which responds to normally --
2. If subscriber is NOT provisioned for IPv6, they are
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:23:08AM -0400, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
Having advanced users (people like us) manually
configure their DNS servers to point to HE (for example) will pertain to a
small percentage of the overall Internet using population that must start
using IPv6 without special
Le 1 avr. 2010 à 00:11, Jason Livingood a écrit :
...
This to me seems like a cure worse than the disease.
That is also a concern I share.
It seems that have the cart before the horse, so to speak. IMHO, we need to
do the following (and there's no reason they cannot occur rapidly):
Le 31 mars 2010 à 22:55, Dan Wing a écrit :
But Remi's point is that those same systems (running Windows XP
and IE6) using 6rd will be denied the ability to access content
via IPv6. Which removes an incentive for ISPs to add 6rd (and
offload the NAT44 they may soon have to install).
If I
Igor,
I have a feeling that the energy spent on defending *now* your proposed
solution would better be spent providing asap details on the problem you are
trying to solve, i.e. explaining which OS does what exactly, in which
circumstances, to break what?
Le 31 mars 2010 à 23:19, Igor
I've not seen much attempt yet to spell all this out, so I'll attempt to
solicit some responses...
It seems that have the cart before the horse, so to speak. IMHO, we need to
do the following (and there's no reason they cannot occur rapidly):
1 - Develop a clear problem statement that
-Original Message-
From: John Jason Brzozowski
[mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:23 PM
To: Dan Wing; Igor Gashinsky
Cc: Andrew Sullivan; dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS presentation
On 3/31/10 5:12 PM, Dan Wing dw
were it not Apr 1, I would think that was a typo. Strangely enough, I
actually worked on a protocol translator for LU6.2 devices on a BX.25
(!) network, long ago in a galaxy far away...
I agree with your point, the medium in this case is not the
message...apologies to Prof. McLuhan.
On
In message pine.lnx.4.64.1004011806490.15...@moonbase.nullrouteit.net, Igor G
ashinsky writes:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jason Livingood wrote:
:: Igor - How do you define broken? And what technical issues do you believe
:: underlie this condition?
This is actually very subjective, and I
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, Mark Andrews wrote:
:: How many of those clients are actually using ISP's nameservers when
:: the breakage occurs?
I'll be able to answer that somewhat when we have our data collected.
The somewhat is because I don't know of a way to identify if the user's
request goes
:: Solve it in the browser, which is well-placed to know if there
:: really is connectivity and can even determine if IPv6 (or IPv4)
:: is temporarily broken or abnormally slow:
::
:: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech-01
::
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Edward Lewis wrote:
:: Dual-stack and IPv6-only installations are in some cases broken today.
:: It's unrealistic to say, Let them feel the pain they'll upgrade,
:: because the people this affects are unlikely to be able to understand
:: what is happening to them. As a
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
:: On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: So, the question now is, what can be done? By no means do I think that
:: lying based on transport is a good idea, however, I simply don't have a
:: better one, and, this is a real problem, which is
At 3:28 -0400 3/31/10, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix much sooner
then that (hopefully about a year before the
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 3:28 -0400 3/31/10, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
::
:: On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
::
:: You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
:: behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
:: behavior problem, and we need to engineer
A far better solution would be to instead segregate with different DNS server
IPs.
ISPs already have multiple DNS resolvers (eg, no wildcarding resolvers,
DNSSEC test resolvers). And the ISP knows if its giving out a v6 address or
not for a client and routing IPv6 for that client.
And even
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6 is an ipv6-capable browser,
as long as it's going to
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6 is an ipv6-capable
browser,
as long as it's
On 3/31/10 4:37 PM, Igor Gashinsky i...@gashinsky.net wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
[jjmb] this is not what the Free
-Original Message-
From: John Jason Brzozowski
[mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:57 PM
To: Igor Gashinsky; Dan Wing
Cc: Andrew Sullivan; dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS presentation
On 3/31/10 4:37 PM, Igor Gashinsky i
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
::
:: :: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: :: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: :: is shipped by Microsoft.
::
:: Why do you say that? As far as I
-Original Message-
From: Igor Gashinsky [mailto:i...@gashinsky.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:19 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org; 'Andrew Sullivan'
Subject: RE: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS presentation
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan
:: It seems solvably operationally, by asking ISPs to point their
:: IPv4-only subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS server which
:: purposefully breaks responses (returns empty answer), and
:: to point their dual-stack subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS
:: server which functions normally.
On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
You are absolutely right -- it's not a DNS problem, it *is* a host
behavior problem. The issue is that it takes *years* to fix a host
behavior problem, and we need to engineer and deploy a fix much sooner
then that (hopefully about a year
:: It seems solvably operationally, by asking ISPs to point their
:: IPv4-only subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS server which
:: purposefully breaks responses (returns empty answer), and
:: to point their dual-stack subscribers at an ISP-operated DNS
:: server which functions
It would probably cost be far more money to roll out this separate DNS
server view, have folks monitor it and troubleshoot it, test
and certify it in the lab, etc. than just calling and fixing
the broken users.
There is a way for the ISP to detect IPv6-broken users? (Who can
then be
On 3/31/10 4:55 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Dan Wing wrote:
:: Users running IE6 today are IPv4-only users. If/when they go
:: to IPv6, they will be running Windows 7 and whatever browser
:: is shipped by Microsoft.
Why do you say that? As far as I know, IE6
On 3/31/10 5:12 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John Jason Brzozowski
[mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:57 PM
To: Igor Gashinsky; Dan Wing
Cc: Andrew Sullivan; dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] FYI: DNSOPS
Dear All,
Sorry for crossposting.
This proposal is the opposite with the principle how the DNS is developed
a while ago. The DNS is a highly distributed, hierarchical, autonomous,
reliable database with very useful extensions. This modification is
proposing lying about the existence of the
On Mar 30, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
Dear All,
Sorry for crossposting.
This proposal is the opposite with the principle how the DNS is developed a
while ago. The DNS is a highly distributed, hierarchical, autonomous,
reliable database with very useful extensions. This
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:04:39AM -0700, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
His linux host would do an A and an query and, until the
query timed out, delay creating connections eg, through SSH, web
browsing, etc. An amazingly painful experience for him until he
diagnosed it.
But the answer to
On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I am not among those who think that the number of clients involved
with this is insignificant. I know that something people sometimes
hear, but the abolute number of people involved does make this a real
problem. I just don't think that
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 01:46:07PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
Why is there a need to wean people off IPv4?
Because we're about to run out of v4 addresses, according to the
people in charge of giving them out.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
At 13:58 -0400 3/30/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Because we're about to run out of v4 addresses, according to the
people in charge of giving them out.
I've heard that before. The run out does not mean an end to the
IPv4 network. There will still be 4 billion IPv4 network addresses
(yes, a
At 11:25 -0700 3/30/10, Ted Lemon wrote:
You want to use IPv6 because:
- it has significant new features that will make things like VoIP work
better for you
Fine, that's a reason for v6 to come along. But why should I prefer
to run SSH over v6 rather than v4?
- if you can't use IPv6,
Just a point of clarification before the list moderator shuts down
this off-topic thread..
Ed's unstated assumption is that the condition being considered is
communication between two hosts that are both dual-stack. It is not
that he fails to understand that hosts that are now IPv4-only
41 matches
Mail list logo
